Current Issues in Teacher Education WALTER E. HAGER "Conflict regarding some of these issues is becoming so great that we can hardly hope to do really good work in preparing teachers until the issues are resolved," asserts Walter E. Hager, president, Wilson Teachers College, Public Schools of the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., and chairman, Council on Cooperation in Teacher Education. AN ANNOUNCEMENT was made in 1951 that the Ford Foundation had given a considerable grant of money to the State of Arkansas to finance a demonstration in teacher education over a period of years. Although the details of the demonstration are left to the educational leaders in the state, it seems apparent that the program to be demonstrated must consist essentially of four years of education in the tra ditional disciplines, followed by a year of internship under selected master teachers with some lectures or instruc tion in theory and principles of teach ing during this year. The December 1951 issue of The Survey carried an article by Adelaide Xichols Baker challenging state and local school authorities to modify present rigid requirements for teaching licenses. According to her, the require ments in professional education courses have caused the schools to lose "many potential teachers who might have been saved to them by a more receptive attitude toward the knowledge and skills they possessed and a creative effort to supplement them by in-service train ing." These two instances, and others which might be cited, are evidences that there is widespread disagreement re338

garding the nature and amount of professional preparation needed by teachers. Not all current issues in teacher education are embodied or implied in these examples, but they serve to emphasize several of the more significant ones. ISSUES INVOLVING THE NATURE OF TEACHER PREPARATION One of the most pressing issues now facing teacher educators may be pre sented in the question, "How much professional preparation for teachers is needed in addition to, or along with, the mastery of the subject or subjects to be taught?" Probably this is an in adequate statement of the problem, but at least it suggests the issue. Until recently most educators thought that the desirability of rather extensive professional preparation of teachers was well established. During the last year or two, this assumption has been challenged with increasing vigor. The educational leaders in the Ford Foundation seem to be saying that teachers need some professional skills and understandings, but that these can be acquired quite satisfactorily from a master teacher during a year of internship. Adelaide Baker says about the same thing. She seems to be conEducational Leadership

vinced that a young teacher will get along well with professional instruc tion given to him during his early teach ing years, provided he has had a good liberal education and has acquired a scholarly mastery of the fields he is teaching. On the other side are those who believe that teaching is a profession which requires careful preparation mastery of subjects to be taught, a profound understanding of how chil dren grow, skill in directing this growth, skill in working with people, and a knowledge of the place and function of the school in our society. It is urged that these knowledges and skills can and should be developed to the maximum degree possible before the person starts to teach. It is coming as a distinct shock to many educators that this point of view is being challenged. But it is important to know that it is being challenged and with vigor! Almost with bitterness. This issue will obviously receive much attention during the next five or six years far more than most educators have hitherto expected. The demon stration in Arkansas will be followed with interest and concern. The results there and the outcome of the debate upon the issue everywhere may affect in a profound way the nature of teacher education in the United States for generations to come. Timing of Professional Preparation

The next issue suggested by the open ing paragraphs of this article has to do with when the professional prepa ration should come. It might be stated thus: Is professional preparation some thing that can be given in a semes' March, 1952

ter or two after the prospective teacher has mastered the subject or subjects he will teach? O r is the professional preparation something that must be distributed over a period of several years and perhaps be related closely to the subjects to be taught, even integrated with the subject matter? Those who favor the former of the two possibilities seem to assume that professional preparation consists of ac quiring certain skills and that this can be done almost any time. Indeed, some of them apparently believe that it is best concentrated in a relatively short period after subjects to be taught have been mastered. In this way, it is thought that the student can more likely focus attention on his major. subject in a scholarly way during the early part of his education, and concentrate upon the professional elements in the later part. Those who favor something like the second of the two possibilities believe that professional preparation does not consist merely of a set of skills to be mastered and added to knowledge of subjects to be taught. They believe that professional preparation includes a vast array of subject matter of its own; that even though certain skills must be acquired, they must be based upon a profound understanding of human be ings how they grow and how they interact and that this understanding can be acquired only by a study just as scholarly as that required in the more traditional disciplines. These persons believe also that professional preparation requires the maturing which can come only if it is extended over a period of several years prob ably three at least. Finally, they believe 339

that there is no such thing as "method" apart from the subject and chil dren to be taught that children and method and teaching subjects must be studied all at the same time if there is to be developed the best professional competence. The third issue suggested by our opening examples is implied in the question, "What should be the essential nature of preparation for teaching?" The issue seems to be: Should the focus of teacher preparation be upon subject matter and how to teach it? O r should the prospective teacher be required to concentrate primarily upon children and how they grow as individuals and as members of a living, vital society a society which has a stake in their growth? Persons who support the latter point of view agree that subject matter is important, tremendously important, but insist that it is not an end in itself. The prospective teacher must learn how subjects studied can contribute to the desirable growth of children in their society. In considering these three issues, it should not be assumed that the conflict is entirely between liberal arts colleges on one side, and teachers colleges on the other. One of the most highly professional and most demanding pro grams for the preparation of teachers in the country is being developed in a liberal arts college.1 ISSUES INVOLVING STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION OF INSTITUTIONS According to the NEA Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, there are 1217 institutions of i Adclphi College, Garden City, Long Island, New York. 340

higher education in the United States preparing teachers. Only 256 of these are accredited by the American Associ ation of Colleges for Teacher Edu cation. Most of the others are approved only by their own State Departments of Education, or not at all. There is a growing feeling among leaders in the teaching profession that too many of the institutions preparing teachers have inferior facilities or pro grams of doubtful value. At least, it is believed that there are insufficient pro visions for making sure that persons entering the teaching profession are well prepared. On the other side, there are prominent and influential edu cators who believe that there are too many accrediting agencies and that increased accrediting activity in any field should be opposed. The issues seem to be covered by the following questions: Is approval by a State Department of Education sufficient? If not, should regional accrediting associations do the job? Or, should a new national agency for accrediting teacher education in stitutions be established one that would be more broadly representative and operate more extensively than the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education? In any event, what kind of standards for the preparation of teachers should be set up? And, who should make them? In order to arrive at answers to these questions, an ad hoc committee was set up during the year 1951 consisting of representatives from the NEA Com mission on Teacher Education and Pro fessional Standards, the National CounEducational Leadership

cil of Chief State School Officers, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of State Di rectors of Teacher Education and Certi fication, and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. After several meetings and long de liberation, this Committee brought forth its recommendations. In brief, it recommends that (a) there be estab lished a National Council for Accredi tation of Teacher Education; (b) this National Council consist of represen tatives of the teaching profession, of the lay public (the school boards), the legal state education agencies, and the teacher education institutions; (c) this National Council be empowered to establish standards lor teacher edu cation, and set up accredited lists of institutions based upon the standards; (d) the American Association of Col leges for Teacher Education continue its accrediting function until the new Council is prepared to operate. These proposals will undoubtedly be opposed in several quarters. One thing seems to be clear there is certain to be some kind of accreditation of teacher education institutions. Probably this accreditation will affect a greater num ber of teacher preparing institutions than has been true in the past. The only questions seem to be: What kind of an agency will do the job? How will it function? These questions will be answered within the next year or two. And the answers will be of significance both to the teacher education insti tutions and to the teaching profession. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES In the early part of this article we discussed what might be called the subMarch, 1952

ject matter versus the child develop ment emphasis in the* preparation of teachers. There are many persons, prob ably an increasing number, who say that no matter which emphasis is made, the really important problem is whether or not we are preparing the kinds of teachers needed in our democ racy. These persons ask pointedly the following questions: Do we really prepare teachers to carry responsibility? To exercise initia tive? To be leaders? To face profes sional and civic problems with courage? Do we really prepare teachers to think critically about important civic and national problems as well as about professional problems? Do we really educate teachers to have a broad knowledge of world prob lems? We are urged to recogni/e that these are the first essentials for teachers in our democracy if they are to educate our next generation to meet and solve the problems of a nation which has to assume world leadership. And we are led to believe that we may not be doing the job! Here is something to give us pause, no matter what we may believe should be the basic form and structure of teacher education. The final issue we shall face is one which concerns all educators, and in deed all laymen. It is contained in the way we answer the question. "Are we Expecting too much of teachers, es pecially of elementary teachers?" In the last fifty years the job of the teacher has become unbelievably com plicated. What makes the situation es pecially bad is that there is no agree ment, among educators or among lay men, as to just what should reasonably

be expected of the teacher. Even so, this, we mean chiefly that we have there is strong support for most of the added tremendously to what we expect following: of teachers, but we are maintaining The teacher must have a mastery of about the same staffs the same pupilthe subjects he teaches. teacher ratios we had in the late igth The teacher must be a specialist in century. Shall we increase staff and cut human growth and development. He the teacher loads so that teachers can must know how children grow and how do well all that is now considered es to guide that growth. He must know sential in good education? Or, shall we how to work with parents, and how to decide that this isn't possible, and de help them guide the growth of their limit the teacher's job narrowly? If so, which parts shall we eliminate? And children. All teachers must share in the health what should be done about them? education program. These questions must be answered soon. All teachers must be competent in In presenting this list of issues it the use of the radio, television, motion must be recognized that in connection pictures and other visual and auditory with most of them, the writer has re aitls. vealed his own bias. This has been All teachers must be civic leaders. done deliberately because in these in At least be prepared to help with civic stances the professionally desirable course of action seems to be so obvious. endeavors. Elementary teachers must be experts What is more important is to note in teaching the three R's. They must that no attempt has been made to make be s imilarly expert in teaching art, the list complete. It must be admitted music, physical education, social studies, that there are other issues which many literature, speech. Yes, and character, educators may consider nearly or quite ethics, morals. as significant as the ones listed here. On top of all, numerous pressure Every person who endeavors to identify groups insist upon particular slants to current issues in teacher education will the teaching. One group insists upon probably come out with a different list. stressing citizenship. Another wants the In any event, it must be recognized teaching of Americanism to be domi that there are vital questions to be nant. Another demands stress upon answered and vital issues to be resolved maintaining our present economic or in the field of teacher education. Many ganization. Etc., etc. of them are not really new but have been Most of the demands are really de troubling educators for a long time. fensible, even desirable. The question Only the emphasis of the intensity is: Can the teacher do it all? Much of changes. The conflict regarding some of the criticism of modern education arises these issues is becoming so great that we in part from the fact that teachers can can hardly hope to do really good work not possibly do all that is being de in preparing teachers until the issues manded of them. We are trying to get are resolved. All of them are worthy of a modern job in education with the the best thinking that devoted teachers same machinery we had in 1890. By can give. 342

,

Educational Leadership

Copyright © 1952 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.